Sabhajeet Yadav and Bala Krishna Narayana, JJ. - By this petition, petitioner has challenged the validity of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 on the ground that under Rule 4 (1) and (2) of the said rules, the Collector of the District has been given unguided, uncanalised and uncontrolled power to determine minimum value of land, (Circle Rates) of immoveable property within the territorial limit of the District for charging Stamp Duty upon the instrument containing the transactions of conveyance and said rate of valuation of land can be revised by him within a period of two years from the date of fixation of earlier minimum rate suo motu or an application made to him within two years without any standard or principles, as such, Rule 4 (1) and (2) of said rules suffers from vice of excessive delegation. It is stated that 1997 Rules do not provide any guiding principle or standard and/or the materials to be taken into consideration by the Authority, to whom the power has been delegated under Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules, to determine minimum value (Circle Rate) of the immovable property of the area for the purpose of charging Stamp duty. The Government also did not frame separate guidelines fixing the norms and the principles for evaluating the minimum rate/market value of the area to be determined by Authority concerned. Thus, the Authority/Collector of the District having been conferred uncanalised and unfettered power under Rule 4 to revise the Circle Rate of the area as such the rule in question is also altra vires the Parent Act. 2. It is stated that earlier to the aforesaid 1997 Rules, there was another set of rules namely U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942. Chapter XV of the said Rules provided the guidelines for determining the market value of certain instrument. Under Rule 341 (e) of which it was provided that for the purposes of payment of Stamp Duty, the minimum market value of immoveable property forming the subject matter of an instrument referred to under in Clause (c) of 340(1) may be equal to the value worked out on the basis of average price per square metre prevailing in the locality on the date of instrument. Whereas under new rules 1997, no such guidelines or principles are provided for fixation of minimum rate for valuation of land, and since the earlier existing rules have been superseded and repealed by 1997 Rules, therefore, the aforesaid guiding factor existing under earlier rules has no application under the new 1997 Rules and now it is open for the Collector to fix any Circle Rate in whimsical and arbitrary manner as he likes, therefore, merely on this ground alone the provisions of 1997 Rules can be struck down by this Court. 3. It is stated that the Circle Rates revised by the Collector, Allahabad vide impugned order dated 20/28.8.2008 are highly exorbitant and the same are not reflective of the true minimum value of the land of area, inasmuch as the rates have been enhanced 10 to 15 times based on no justifiable material or factors to be taken into consideration for determining the minimum value (Circle Rate) of the land of the area. By this petition the petitioner has also challenged the policy of grant of free hold right over Nazul Lands on various grounds mentioned in the writ petition. 4. While demonstrating arbitrary fixation of the Circle Rates of immovable properties in urban areas of Allahabad City certain other orders containing the list of circle rates, earlier fixed by the Collector Allahabad have also been brought on record by filing supplementary affidavit in the said writ petition. It is stated that on 1.4.2006 an order fixing Circle Rates of urban area of City Allahabad was issued for a period of two years but before expiry of said period another order fixing further enhanced Circle Rates of the same urban area was issued on 11.6.2007 and thereafter on expiry of merely nine months (before expiry of even one year what to say of two years) another order dated 20/28.8.2008 enhancing the circle rates for the same urban areas has been issued again by Collector, Allahabad. 5. While placing the examples of different areas of Allahabad City learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out and demonstrated from the records that in the order dated 1.4.2006 for residential purposes the Circle Rates of land of civil area of Allahabad City was fixed at the rate of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9000/- per sq. 5. While placing the examples of different areas of Allahabad City learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out and demonstrated from the records that in the order dated 1.4.2006 for residential purposes the Circle Rates of land of civil area of Allahabad City was fixed at the rate of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9000/- per sq. meter according to site of land and width of road where the land is situated and for commercial purposes it was fixed at the rate of Rs. 11000/- to Rs. 12000/- per Sq. Metre but in subsequent order dated 11.6.2007 the Circle Rates of the aforesaid area was enhanced and fixed for residential purposes from Rs. 9000/- to Rs. 10000/- per square meter and for commercial purposes from Rs. 14000/- to Rs. 15000/- per square meter. Immediately thereafter within nine months from earlier order on 20/28.8.2008 Circle Rates of Allahabad city have been fixed again by revising earlier existing rates in two part. In first parts, lands of both the sides of various road passing through different Localities and Mohalla's were earmarked for fixation of Circle rate and in second part remaining areas which were not covered under first part of road side land were earmarked for fixation of minimum value (Circle Rate) of immoveable property. For example Circle Rate of road side land of High Court, Hanuman Mandir (Hanumat Niketan) has been fixed as Rs. 25,000/- per square metre and east of the Hanuman Mandir (Hanumat Niketan Chauraha) up to Madhwapur has been fixed as Rs. 20,000/- per square metre. Similarly for Elgin Road Rs. 20,000/- per square meter, Nawab Yusuf Road Rs. 24,000/- per square meter and Amar Nath Jha Road Rs. 18,000/- per square meter have been fixed by the Collector, Allahabad. Besides the aforesaid roads Circle Rate of other land which is not covered under the first part was fixed differently at a slightly lesser rate by classifying the land again in two categories according to width of road and location of land in as much as, use of land for commercial and residential purposes. 6. Besides the aforesaid roads Circle Rate of other land which is not covered under the first part was fixed differently at a slightly lesser rate by classifying the land again in two categories according to width of road and location of land in as much as, use of land for commercial and residential purposes. 6. At the strength of aforesaid orders of Collector, Allahabad, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the City Allahabad, the Collector Allahabad has enhanced the Circle Rates of the immovable property of district including city by about 300% within two years four months since 1.4.2006 to 20/28.8.2008 i.e. about three times of the existing circle rate as on 1.4.2006, whereas it could be revised biennially (on expiry of two years). It is further submitted that the revisions of aforesaid circle rates have been made at three occasions during short span of two years four months arbitrarily, without any genuine sale, exemplars and justifiable materials, despite thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner told us on the basis of news reports published in Daily News Paper "Dainik Jagran" that the Collector Allahabad was further going to enhance circle rate of the District from July, 2010 again. 7. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the aforesaid action of Collector, Allahabad is not merely based on colourable and/or arbitrary exercise of power rather it is fraud on the power. It is a case of extortion of money by State functionary from the people in one hand and on other hand diverting the immovable property of City Allahabad in the hands of land-mafias and persons having huge black money. He told us that on account of arbitrary fixation of circle rate, the common and middle class people are feeling aggrieved by undue escalation of price of land of City Allahabad and persons having black-money are investing the money in purchasing the land for the reason that such person can not deposit black-money in Bank and the interest rate of which can also not match the escalation in price of land during said period. In this view of the matter, he has submitted and prayed for indulgence of this Court to protect Public Interest by keeping the State machineries within the limits of its powers. 8. In this view of the matter, he has submitted and prayed for indulgence of this Court to protect Public Interest by keeping the State machineries within the limits of its powers. 8. While entertaining the aforesaid writ petition as Public Interest Litigation on 18.6.2010, this Court issued notice to the learned Advocate General, U.P. by fixing the date of hearing of case on 16.7.2010. Learned standing counsel was also heard at length and granted time to file counter affidavit within three weeks on behalf of respondents. While asking for filing counter affidavit on that day, this Court has directed the respondents to make specific reply on the points indicated in the said order which reads as under:- "The counter affidavit shall be sworn by the officer of State Government atleast status of Secretary to the Government of concerned department. While filing said counter affidavit he shall also file complete compilation of of Government Orders containing the policy of Govt. for conversion of Nazul lease land into free-hold land issued by Government from time to time by now. While filing said affidavit, the Secretary of the Government shall clearly indicate the person in whose favour the lease land of Nazul can be converted into free hold and circumstances under which it can be so converted? Further as to whether the conversion of Nazul lease land into free hold is permissible into Government Orders in favour of nominee of lesee, if so as to whether such policy permits illegal transaction of sale of property or lease hold rights in favour of nominees which is otherwise contrary to provisions of law and on account of such provisions containing such conversion as to whether the Government is suffering loss of Stamp Duty which could be otherwise realized by the Government on transfer of lease hold right of the land in question? And further as to whether on account of these factors, such provision contained in Government Orders can be held justified or not? And further as to whether due to such provision the lease holders of Nazul land are making profit by selling their land to the nominees by defeating the provisions of Registration Act, Transfer of property Act and Indian Stamp Act which is not permissible under law? And further as to whether due to such provision the lease holders of Nazul land are making profit by selling their land to the nominees by defeating the provisions of Registration Act, Transfer of property Act and Indian Stamp Act which is not permissible under law? The Secretary shall further state that if the Government permits the nominee of lease holders of Nazul land for conversion of Nazul land into free hold land as to why the occupiers of Nazul lease land can not be conferred such right of converting Nazul lease land into free hold land in their favour in our welfare state? The Collector Allahabad is also directed to file another counter affidavit sworn by him making specific reply of assertions made in the writ petition and supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. While filing said counter affidavit the Collector Allahabad shall also verify the notifications containing the Circle Rates of urban areas of Allahabad City filed by the petitioner as Annexure No.1 of the writ petition and as Annexure Nos. SA-1, SA-2 and SA.3 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and state specifically as to whether the Circle Rates mentioned in the aforesaid notifications are correctly mentioned in the photostate copy filed by the petitioner or not? If necessary, he shall file correct copy of notifications containing the Circle Rates of the Allahabad City allegedly issued on 20.8.2008, 6.11.2007 and 1.4.2006 as enclosed in the supplementary affidavit. Besides the aforesaid notifications, the Collector Allahabad shall also file the notifications of Circle Rates of immovable property of urban areas of Allahabad City preceding the years of 2006. If such notifications were issued earlier in 2004, 2002 and 2000 file the copy of notification containing the Circle Rates of immovable property of Allahabad City alone. The Collector, Allahabad shall also indicate the names of Collectors who had issued aforesaid notifications fixing Circle Rates of Allahabad City as indicated hereinbefore in aforesaid years and their present place of posting alongwith their full particulars of residence whether they are working or retired from service. The Collector, Allahabad shall also indicate the names of Collectors who had issued aforesaid notifications fixing Circle Rates of Allahabad City as indicated hereinbefore in aforesaid years and their present place of posting alongwith their full particulars of residence whether they are working or retired from service. In the said counter affidavit the Collector, Allahabad shall also file a comparative chart of Circle Rates fixed in the aforesaid areas for the land of commercial and residential purposes of Allahabad City particularly pointing out atleast prominent Mohallas like Civil Lines, Ashok Nagar, Katra, Mumfordganj, Darbhanga Colony, George Town, Tagore Town, Colonelganj, Allahapur, Alopibagh, Daraganj, Bairahana, Tularam Bagh, North and South Malaka, Keydganj, Chowk, Myorabad, Rajapur, Mehdauri Colony, Govind Nagar Colony, Chhota and Bara Baghara, Tubewell Colony, Naini, Jhunsi, Fafamau and the aforesaid areas identified through roads particularly mentioning the Circle Rates fixed from time to time in respect of civil areas of Nawab Yusuf Road, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Sardar Patel Marg, Elgin Road, Kamla Nehru Road, Sarojani Naidu Road, Droumand Road, Stretchy Road, Thornhil Road, Patrika Marg, Ponappa Marg, Muir Road, Auckland Road, Circular Road, Minto Road, Stainley Road etc. and other roads like University Road, Hasimpur, Bank Road and roads passing through George Town and Darbhanga Kaisal and other localities including Panna Lal Road, Louder Road, Motilal Nehru Road, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Lidle Road, Church Lane, Madanmohan Malviya Road, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Hamilton Road or Amarnath Jha Marg and other areas from the aforesaid notifications issued in aforesaid years, showing the percentage of increase in circle rates in specific columns. The Collector Allahabad shall also file sketch map of City Allahabad indicating names of Road passing through particular Mohalla or locality. Besides this the Collector Allahabad is also directed to place material alongwith counter affidavit on the basis of which Circle Rates were determined by the Collector Allahabad from time to time while issuing the aforesaid notifications/orders. The aforesaid counter affidavit shall be filed immediately on the date of expiry of three weeks. The Collector and A.D.M. Nazul, Allahabad shall also remain present in the Court in person on the date fixed by this Court i.e. on 16.07.2010. List on 16.07.2010 as part heard before us. Registrar General is directed to communicate this order to the Secretary Finance and Revenue U.P. Govt. Lucknow and District Magistrate, Allahabad through fax forthwith. The Collector and A.D.M. Nazul, Allahabad shall also remain present in the Court in person on the date fixed by this Court i.e. on 16.07.2010. List on 16.07.2010 as part heard before us. Registrar General is directed to communicate this order to the Secretary Finance and Revenue U.P. Govt. Lucknow and District Magistrate, Allahabad through fax forthwith. A copy of this order also be given to Learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi for communication and necessary action free of costs forthwith." 9. Today, counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents sworn by Sri Sanjay Prasad, District Magistrate, Allahabad are taken on record. Collector, Allahabad alongwith A.D.M. Nazul is also present in the Court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed an amendment application and stay application supported by second supplementary affidavit sworn by the petitioner whereby he has filed another list of Circle Rate issued by the office of Additional Collector, Finance and Revenue, Allahabad dated 30.06.2010 which indicates that the minimum value of property (namely Circle Rate) has been again fixed by the Collector under the provisions of Rule-4 of Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 by amending the earlier Circle Rate to be made effective w.e.f. Ist July, 2010, whereby prevailing Circle Rate has been again enhanced to the extent of 25% from existing Circle Rate. A copy of the same is filed as Annexure-S.A.1 of the said supplementary affidavit. An amendment application has also been moved by the petitioner for quashing the said Circle Rate dated 30.6.2010 fixed by the Collector, Allahabad. The said amendment application is allowed and learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to incorporate the aforesaid amendments sought for in the writ petition by 28th July, 2010. 11. An amendment application has also been moved by the petitioner for quashing the said Circle Rate dated 30.6.2010 fixed by the Collector, Allahabad. The said amendment application is allowed and learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to incorporate the aforesaid amendments sought for in the writ petition by 28th July, 2010. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Shailendra, Advocate has submitted that in spite of pendency of above noted writ petition, wherein the Collector, Allahabad was asked by this Court on 18.6.2010, fixing date for hearing of the Writ Petition on 16.7.2010, to justify earlier circle rates fixed vide order dated 1.4.2006, 11.6.2007 and 20/28.8.2008, instead thereof the Collector Allahabad has again fixed circle rate by subsequent order dated 30.6.2010 by making enhancement of about 25-30% in earlier existing Circle Rate of entire District including urban areas of Allahabad City, thereby complicated the issue already involved in the case without any justifiable materials, inspite of fact that this court was seized of the matter, therefore, such action of Collector, Allahabad is not merely arbitrary but malafide also, as such prayed that Collector, Allahabad may be asked immediately either to withdraw the impugned order dated 30.6.2010 and/or the said order may be stayed by this Court. 12. Thereupon, learned standing counsel was asked to make submission in the case, whereupon he has pointed out that the respondents have requested Sri S.G. Hasnain, learned Additional Advocate General U.P. for arguing the case on behalf of State Government but today he is not available in the High Court, therefore, sought adjournment on behalf of learned Additional Advocate General. Learned standing counsel, Sri A.K. Sinha has pointed out that learned Additional Advocate General Sri S.G. Husnain would be available for arguing the case only after 28th July, 2010. Accordingly, hearing of the case should be postponed till 28.7.2010, as such the hearing of the case is adjourned fixing 29th July, 2010 for further hearing. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also directed to file rejoinder affidavit against counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents and standing counsel is directed to file reply of amended writ petition, if he so desires by the next date of listing. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also directed to file rejoinder affidavit against counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents and standing counsel is directed to file reply of amended writ petition, if he so desires by the next date of listing. 14. Since the matter is entrusted to the learned Advocate General Sri S.G. Husnain for arguing the case on behalf of State on whose behalf a request is made to adjourn the case upto 28th July, 2010 but since the Collector, Allahabad has again fixed circle rate vide order dated 30.6.2010 (minimum value of immoveable property of Allahabad City) for the purpose of charging stamp duty on the transaction of transfers while exercising his power under Rule-4 of 1997 Rules to the extent of about 25-30% flat rate increase in prevailing circle rates of the city areas of Allahabad during the pendency of writ petition posted for hearing, as such learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted for grant of interim order staying the aforesaid enhancement of circle rates of Allahabad Cirty, therefore, we have taken pain to go through the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit sworn by Sri Sanjay Prasad, Collector Allahabad, filed in the above noted writ petition on behalf of respondents without any arguments of the counsel for the respondents, as no State counsel has come forward to place the case of State Government on merit except for seeking adjournment in the case. 15. Although counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit did not contain entire materials and explanations sought for by this Court vide its order dated 18th June, 2010 passed in instant writ petition, which may be indicated hereinafter at relevant places but the stand taken in para 4 to 26 of the counter affidavit are extracted as under:- "4. That the petitioner by the present writ petition called the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court under Extra Ordinary power of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the rate list dated 20.8.2008 issued by the Collector of Allahabad under the provisions of rule 4 read with rule 5 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997 (the Rules of 1997 in short) only with respect to city of Allahabad. It appears that the petitioner is not satisfied with the amended rates of that city only and the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of approaching the Collector under the provisions of Rule 4(2) of the said Rules of 1997 and the Collector on being satisfied may amend the rates even before two years of its implementation. However, in the present matter a fresh amended rate has been implemented from Ist July, 2010, as the earlier rate list is prevalent for the last two years. The present writ petition is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Court as the earlier rate list has been implemented in Allahabad and large number of documents have been registered applying those rate and even today the General Public fully satisfied with the rates fixed in the impugned rate list. 5. That the rate of the property is a changing factor and due to appreciation in the value of the property the attraction in the immoveable property is increasing day to day. The price of the property is showing an increasing trend every year like the bullion market, share market etc.. Thus it has become necessary to amend the minimum rates of the property every year specially in the urban area. 6. That the Government has framed the rules known as U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997 by the notification No. S.R. 2114/11-97-1806/95 dated 8.7.1997 after the assent of the legislature. Rule 4 of the said Rules of 1997 provide for issuance of a rate list every two year showing the price of the property, rent etc. for the purposes of valuation as per the provisions of the Indian Stamps Act. 7. That it is also pertinent to raise objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition in the manner of P.I.L. filed by the petitioner, who is an Advocate practicing in this Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has neither purchased any property nor he paid any stamp duty and as such he cannot raise any grievance by means of the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court as he is not an aggrieved party, and therefore, the present writ petition may be dismissed with heavy costs on the aforesaid ground. 8. That the contents of paragraph no.1 and 2 of the writ petition are not correct as stated and as such are denied. 8. That the contents of paragraph no.1 and 2 of the writ petition are not correct as stated and as such are denied. However, it is submitted that the said rate list is effective from 20.8.2008 and the public has got there documents registered applying those rate. There is no grievance amongst the public in general regarding those rates. The petitioner has not shown about the rate of any particular sale deed where the market value is lesser than the rates prescribed in the rate list. The present writ petition has been filed on surmises and conjecture. However, the fixation of the rates do not violate the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. That the contents of paragraph no. 3,4, and 5 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated. It is further submitted that Rule 4(2) of the said Rules of 1997 provide for amending the rate even before two years from the date of fixation of the minimum value or rent as the case may be on being satisfied about its incorrectness. The said provisions are very justified and even a General Public can get the rate list amended under the said provisions but he has to satisfy the Collector about the incorrectness of the rate under the said provision. The Collector being the highest revenue authority of the District is presumed to be aware of the prevalent rates. The various development activities of the District and Urbanization in some locality is known to the Collector through his subordinate revenue authorities, as such he has rightly been entrusted with the duty of fixing the minimum rate under Rules of 1997. 10. That the contents of paragraph no.6 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. It is further submitted that the petitioner being an Advocate has got no sale deed executed in his favour and has failed to prove the rates being exorbitant and he is not also aggrieved in any manner, and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. That the contents of paragraph no. 7,8,9 and 10 of the writ petition have been stated about the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamps Act and as such the averments being legal in nature may be replied to at the time of arguments. 12. 11. That the contents of paragraph no. 7,8,9 and 10 of the writ petition have been stated about the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamps Act and as such the averments being legal in nature may be replied to at the time of arguments. 12. That the contents of paragraph no.11 of the writ petition are not admitted and denied. It is further submitted that there is a newly amended section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, which do not provide reference on the basis of the reason to believe and as such the provisions contained in Section 47-A will prevail over any earlier Rules. 13. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 12 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the contents contained therein are about the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and call for no reply. 14. That the contents of paragraph no.13 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. It is further submitted that various guidelines regarding the fixation of the minimum rate have been issued from time to time by the Commissioner Stamps as well as by the Government. Few such guidelines are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure-C.A.-1 to this counter affidavit. 15. That the contents of paragraph no.14 of the writ petition do not call for any reply as they have been stated about the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. 16. That the contents of paragraph no. 15 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. However, it is further submitted that the arguments raised in paragraph under reply are argumentative in nature and shall be suitably replied with at the time of argument. It is also relevant to state here that the Hon'ble Court High Court as well as the Hon'ble Court Apex Court has held in several cases that the developments in the near by locality and the situation in the surrounding area must be considered while determining the market value. It is further made clear that the said rate list prescribed only minimum rate of the property and not the prevailing market value due to specific situation of the property in some particular area. Copies of some guidelines prescribed by the Government is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-2 to this counter affidavit. 17. That the contents of paragraph no. Copies of some guidelines prescribed by the Government is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-2 to this counter affidavit. 17. That the contents of paragraph no. 16 and 17 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. It is further submitted that the State Government has issued first Notification dated 23.6.1992 for making the Nazul land into freehold land. Thereafter several amended Government Orders were issued as per urgency and exigency by the State Government and these Government Orders are dated as 23.5.1992, 2.12.1992, 3.10.1994, 1.1.1996, 17.2.1996, 29.8.1996, 26.9.1997, 1.12.1998, 10.12.2002, 17.3.2008, 18.7.2008, 21.10.2008 and 26.5.2009. Copies of the Government Orders dated 23.5.1992, 2.12.1992, 3.10.1994, 1.1.1996, 17.2.1996, 29.8.1996, 26.9.1997, 1.12.1998, 10.12.2002, 17.3.2008, 18.7.2008, 21.10.2008 and 26.5.2009 are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure-CA-3 to this counter affidavit. It is made clear that in the aforesaid Government Orders, the Government has made provisions for making Nazul land into freehold land in favour of the lessee or their heirs or any person who are nominated by such lessee or heirs of the lessee and on the basis of the aforesaid Government Orders, the Government has made Nazul land into freehold land. It is further submitted that several lessees and their heirs got the Nazul land converted into the freehold land as per the above Government Orders. It is further clarified that where the lessee or their heirs have nominated to any other person for making the Nazul land into freehold land in their favour, the Government in accordance with the aforesaid Government Orders made the freeholds in their favour and following the aforesaid provisions of the Government Orders the public at large are benefited by the aforesaid policy of the Government. It is further submitted that the aforesaid policy of the Government has become popular amongst the general people and so many people has taken benefit of the aforesaid Government Orders. 18. That the contents of paragraph no. 18 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. It is further submitted while fixing the minimum value of the property the exercise for reaching the true and prevalent market value of the property are being taken by the authority at the different level without being effected by any Bhumafiya. The allegation is not supported with evidence as such denied. It is further submitted while fixing the minimum value of the property the exercise for reaching the true and prevalent market value of the property are being taken by the authority at the different level without being effected by any Bhumafiya. The allegation is not supported with evidence as such denied. It is further submitted that various meetings of the representative of the public were held with the authorities concerned and various valuable suggestions regarding the rates were implemented while finalizing the minimum rate. 19. That the contents of paragraph no. 19 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. It is further submitted that the rate prescribed in paragraph under reply is prevailing market value of the property and the transaction in the area is being done on these rates which can be verified from the record of the Sub Registrar. The said notification does not contravene the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that some property has been sold out even more than market value prescribed by the Government. Copies of some exemplars being document Nos. 4855/06, 4706/06, 1902/07, 3345/06, 2515/08, 4187/09 and 4587/09 are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure-CA-4 to this counter affidavit. 20. That the contents of paragraph no. 20 and 21 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. It is further submitted that the rate prescribed in the previous rate list prescribing previous rate list cannot be compared as the situation in the prosperous Civil Lines area has changed due to growth of multi story buildings and malls as well as big commercial activities. However, it is further submitted that right from 2002 to 2008 this growth cannot be said to be used if comparing year to year. For perusal of the Hon'ble Court a chart prepared by the office of the deponent is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-5 to this counter affidavit. 21. That the contents of paragraph no. 22,23 and 24 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. However, it is further submitted that the change in the nature of the property and its use is not relevant for the present dispute and as such the same do not call for any specific reply. 21. That the contents of paragraph no. 22,23 and 24 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. However, it is further submitted that the change in the nature of the property and its use is not relevant for the present dispute and as such the same do not call for any specific reply. However, it is submitted that the averment the District Collector has not considered the relevant requirement as provided under the Rules 4(1) (a) is not correct and it is further submitted that the District Collector has made enhancement in the circle rate after considering the full requirement of the aforesaid Rules. 22. That the contents of paragraph no. 25 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. However, it is submitted that it is true that the value of the money has fallen and the property in prime locality has become much costly and it is beyond the reach of the middle man, but one could not challenge the circle rate fixed by the Government alone on this ground as the Government can fix the circle rate on the basis of the sale of the land of the aforesaid area. It is further clarified that the Government has also taken it as a policy matter to provide cheap houses to the common man in the scheme framed in the name and style of Manninya Kanshi Ram Avas Yojana. 23. That the contents of paragraph no. 26,27,28 & 29 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. It is further submitted that the said rate list notified by the order dated 20.8.2008 was very justified and was acceptable by the general public and large number of sale deeds have been registered applying those rates and therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the purchase of the land on the basis of the circle rate is beyond the reach of common man and general people is not accepted. However, it is relevant to state here that even after the notification dated 20.8.2008 fixing the circle rate, the authorities have observed that certain plots have been sold even more than the circle rate fixed by the Government by the aforesaid notification, and therefore, the petitioner's contention is absolutely wrong and appears to be false. However, it is relevant to state here that even after the notification dated 20.8.2008 fixing the circle rate, the authorities have observed that certain plots have been sold even more than the circle rate fixed by the Government by the aforesaid notification, and therefore, the petitioner's contention is absolutely wrong and appears to be false. Copies of the sale deeds by which certain transactions have been made after notification dated 20.8.2008 are being filed herewith collective and marked as Annexure-CA-6 to this counter affidavit. 24. That the contents of paragraph no. 30 of the writ petition are absolutely wrong hence denied. It is further submitted that there was no such urgency before the petitioner that he was compelled to file the present writ petition during the vacation. The writ petition has been filed for certain ulterior motive which is best known to the petitioner. 25. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.31 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the notification dated 20.8.2008 as issued by the Government fixing the minimum circle rate is inconsonance with the provisions of the Stamps Act and in no manner fixing of the minimum circle rate can be said to be illegal or in violation of the Act, as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court. 26. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.32 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the grounds raised in the writ petition have no substance law and the petitioner has failed to make out any ground for interference of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs." 16. Apart from the aforesaid counter affidavit, the Collector, Allahabad also filed supplementary counter affidavit, while making reply of the supplementary affidavit filed in the writ petition. The relevant averments made in para 5 to 9 of the said supplementary counter affidavit are quoted as under:- "5. That the contents of para 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the supplementary affidavit are not admitted as stated. The rate list w.e.f. 01.04.2006 was issued biennially as per the provisions of rule 4 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) rules 1997. Whereas the said notification w.e.f. 06.11.2007 was only a revised rate list as per the provisions of rule 4(2) of the rules 1997. The rate list w.e.f. 01.04.2006 was issued biennially as per the provisions of rule 4 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) rules 1997. Whereas the said notification w.e.f. 06.11.2007 was only a revised rate list as per the provisions of rule 4(2) of the rules 1997. The rate of some of the segments of urban area of Allahabad has changed frequently as such rates of some of the area were revised under rule 4 of the said rules 1997 by the notification dated 06.11.2007. The sudden rise in the rates were visible due to large number of multi story building, restaurant and commercial malls being built in the heart of the city. The growing valuation of the property in the city of Allahabad (Urban area) was due to shortage of the property and high demand in the area. The local administration observed the process and fixed the minimum rates of the property accordingly in the area. A copy of the rate list dated 24.06.2006, 06.11.2007 and 29.08.2008 are being filed here with and marked as Annexure-SCA-1, SCA-2 and SCA-3 to this affidavit. 6. That the contents of para 9,10,11 and 12 of the supplementary affidavit are matter of records and not disputed. However, the prescribed rate in the then rate list were factual and based on potential nature of the property. A vigorous survey of the whole area were under taken by the district authorities together with the index of the Sub Registrar office while fixing those minimum rates and every precaution were taken to avoid inconvenience to the General Public. 7. That the contents of para 13,14,15 and 16 of the supplementary affidavit are not admitted as stated. The locality shown in the para under reply are very prosperous and road side property are being transferred at the said rates irrespective of its use residential or commercial. Since only one minimum rate of the common area was fixed to avoid any discretion of the authorities of the stamp and registration department as well the various persons involved in the business of the property. It is reiterated that the various segments in the rate list consist of similar nature of the property. Since only one minimum rate of the common area was fixed to avoid any discretion of the authorities of the stamp and registration department as well the various persons involved in the business of the property. It is reiterated that the various segments in the rate list consist of similar nature of the property. It is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court have held in so many matters that future use of the property can not be made basis for valuation of the property which was fully considered while fixing the minimum rates. 8. That the contents of para 17 and 18 of the supplementary affidavit are incorrect as such denied. The said rates fixed of the posh area was the prevailing market rate at the relevant time which can be verified from the exemplar documents registered in the various Sub Registrar offices of the said area. Since the road side portion was fully being used as commercial in the whole area as there was a great demand of the front side land in the heart of the town. The answering respondents are not concerned with the consideration money passing between the parties. The Indian Stamp Act being a fiscal legislation and the revenue collected by way of Stamp and Registration being a major source of the State Government Revenue receipt, as such every precaution is taken by the authorities to increase the revenue income without causing inconvenience to the General Public. The chart of some previous years of the registered documents and the revenue receipt in district Allahabad showing increasing trend is being reproduced as follows:-- ( In Crore) Revenue Year Document presented for registration Registration Fees Stamp duty Court Fees Total Income 2009-10 47157 1665.14 10480.95 671.34 12817.43 2008-09 40641 965.85 9253.31 456.93 10676.09 2007-08 38504 972.60 8095.83 623.88 9692.31 2006-07 40411 968.25 7458.23 555.26 8981.74 2005-06 37499 861.21 7507.80 486.20 8855.21 9. That the contents of para 19 and 20 of the supplementary affidavit are not admitted as stated. The petitioner has failed to produce any thing reliable in his favour to interfere in the rate list dated 29.08.2008. It is respectfully submitted that a further exercise of issuing a revised rate list is in process and the petitioner should participate in the proceeding and get the rates revised after satisfying the Collector/authorities about the incorrectness of the rates. The petitioner has failed to produce any thing reliable in his favour to interfere in the rate list dated 29.08.2008. It is respectfully submitted that a further exercise of issuing a revised rate list is in process and the petitioner should participate in the proceeding and get the rates revised after satisfying the Collector/authorities about the incorrectness of the rates. The writ petition is premature and devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed." 17. Although several questions are involved in the writ petition, which may be decided after final hearing of the case but for the purpose of grant of interim relief sought for by the petitioner, we would like to examine the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner vis-a-vis averments made in counter and supplementary counter affidavits to explore the feasibility for granting such relief only on few questions at this stage, as such, having regard to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, first question arises for consideration is that as to whether rule 4 of 1997 Rules gives uncanalised and uncontrolled power to the Collector of the district to fix minimum value of immoveable property (circle rate) within the territory of district for the purpose of charging stamp duty on instruments chargeable by such duty and as such renders it to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and/or as to whether provisions of Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act conferring power to fix minimum value of land for the purpose of charging stamp duty on the instrument chargeable with such duty to the rule making authority, without fixing any guidelines or without formulating any policy for such fixation, suffer from vice of excessive delegation of legislative power to the rule making authority and to that extent the aforesaid piece of legislation can be held to be void as unconstitutional, consequently Rule 4 of 1997 rules can also be held to be beyond the scope of authority under law? 18. For appreciation of aforesaid question it is necessary to point out that the Uttar Pradesh Stamp Valuation of Property Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 1997 Rules) has been framed by the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of power under Sections 27, 47-A and 75 of Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). For appreciation of aforesaid question it is necessary to point out that the Uttar Pradesh Stamp Valuation of Property Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 1997 Rules) has been framed by the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of power under Sections 27, 47-A and 75 of Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 75 of the Indian Stamp Act deals with the power of State Government to make rule to carry out generally the purpose of Act which reads as under:- "75. Power to make rules generally to carry out Act.- The State Government may make rules to carry out generally the purposes of this Act, and may, by such rules, prescribe the fines, which shall in no case exceed five hundred rupees, to be incurred on breach thereof." 19. Section 27 of the Act casts a duty upon the party presenting an instrument relating to immovable property chargeable with ad valorem duty to set forth the facts in the instruments affecting the duty chargeable thereon, which is extracted as under:- "27. Facts affecting duty to be set forth in instrument.-(1) The consideration (if any) and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of any instrument with duty, or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, shall be fully and truly set forth therein. (2). In the case of instruments relating to immovable property chargeable with an ad valorem duty on the value of the property, and not on the value set forth, the instrument shall fully and truly set forth and annual land revenue in the case of revenue paying land, the annual rental or gross asets, if any, in the case of other immovable property, the local rates, Municipal or other taxes, if any, to which such property may be subject, and any other particulars which may be prescribed by rules made under this Act." 20. Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act provides mechanism to deal with the under valued instruments which reads as under: - " 47-A. Under-valuation of the instrument:- [(1) (a) If the market value of any property which is the subject of any instrument, on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property as set forth in such instrument, is less than even the minimum value determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act, the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, immediately after presentation of such instrument and before accepting it for registration and taking any action under Section 52 of the said Act, require the person liable to pay stamp duty under Section 29, to pay the deficit stamp duty as computed on the basis of the minimum value determined in accordance with the said rules and return the instrument for presenting again in accordance with Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908. (b) When the deficit stamp duty required to be paid under clause (a), is paid in respect of any instrument and the instrument is presented again for registration, the registering officer shall certify by endorsement thereon, that the deficit stamp duty has been paid in respect thereof and the name and the residence of the person paying them and register the same. (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, the deficit stamp duty may be paid under clause (a) in the form of impressed stamps containing such declaration as may be prescribed. (d) If any person does not make the payment of deficit stamp duty after receiving the order referred to in clause (a) and presents the instrument again for registration, the registering officer shall, before registering the instrument refer the same to the Collector, for determination of the market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon.] (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determining the market value of the property which is the subject of such instrument and the proper duty payable thereon. (3) The Collector may, suo motu, or on a reference from any court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf, within four years from the date of registration of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property, not already referred to him under sub- section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value, of the property which is the subject for such instrument, and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in such instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon: Provided that, with the prior permission of the State Government, an action under this sub-section may be taken after a period of four years but before a period of eight years from the date of registration of the instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property. [Explanation, - The payment of deficit stamp duty by any person under any order of registering officer under sub-section (1) shall not prevent the Collector from initiating proceedings on any instrument under sub-section (3).]" 21. Earlier to the commencement of the 1997 Rules there was another rule namely U.P. Stamp Rules 1942 (hereinafter referred to as the 1942 Rules), which was framed by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred by Indian Stamp Act 1899 and in pursuance of powers conferred by the notification of Government of India Finance Department, (Central Revenue) No.9 of 9/Stamps, dated 13th November, 1937 and in exercise of powers conferred by Section 21 of United Provincial Court Fees Amendment Act 1938 and in pursuance of power conferred by notification of the Government of India, Home Department No.158/38 dated February 15, 1939 with the concurrence of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Hon'ble Chief Judge of Oudh Court at Lucknow. Chapter XV of the said rules prescribed complete method and basis for determination of market value of certain instruments and factors to be taken into account while making such determination of market value. 22. Chapter XV of the said rules prescribed complete method and basis for determination of market value of certain instruments and factors to be taken into account while making such determination of market value. 22. For the purpose of instant case it would be useful to refer rules 340-A and 341 of Chapter XV of 1942 Rules which have material bearing upon the controversy involved in the case. Rule 340-A of said rules which had cast a duty upon the Collector to supply a copy of the statement showing classification of soil circle rates etc. biennially to the District Registrar and such other officers as State Government may specify reads as under:- "340-A.- (a) Every Collector shall biennially supply to the District Registrar and such other officers as the State Government may specify, a copy of the statement showing classification of soil, circle rate and the average price of land appertaining to each such classification situate in every pargana, corporation or local body of his district. (b). The District Registrar shall supply copies of the statement mentioned in the preceding para to the Sub-Registrars under his control and shall also forward a copy of the same to the Inspector General of Registration, Uttar Pradesh. (c) Every Registering Officer shall cause a copy of the above statement to be affixed outside the registration office. " 23. Rule-341 dealt with determination of minimum market value of immoveable property forming subject of instrument like conveyance etc. which reads as under:- "341. (c) Every Registering Officer shall cause a copy of the above statement to be affixed outside the registration office. " 23. Rule-341 dealt with determination of minimum market value of immoveable property forming subject of instrument like conveyance etc. which reads as under:- "341. For the purpose of payment of stamp duty, the minimum market value of immovable property forming the subject of an instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift settlement, award or trust, referred to in Section 47-A (1) of the Act, shall be deemed to be not less than than as arrived on the basis of the multiples given below: (i) Where the subject is land,- (a) in case of Bhumidhari- 800 times the land revenue; (b) in case of Sirdari land-400 times the land revenue; (c) where the land is not assessed to revenue but net profits have arisen from it during the three years immediately preceding the date of the instrument-- 25 times the annual average of such profit; (d) where the land is not assessed to revenue and no profits have arisen from it during the three years immediately preceding the date of the instrument-- 400 times the assumed annual rent; (e) where the land is non-agricultural and is situate within the limits of any local body referred to in Clause (c) of sub-rule (i) of Rule 340-equal to the value worked out on the basis of the average price per square metre, prevailing in the locality on the date of the instrument. (ii) Where the subject is grove or garden: (a) if assessed to revenue the value of the land shall be worked out in the manner land down in Rule 341 (i) (a) and the value of the tree standing thereon shall be worked out according to the average price of the trees of same size, and age prevailing in the locality on the date of the instrument; (b) if not assessed to revenue or is exempted from it, the value thereof shall be determined at 20 times the annual rent plus the premium or 20 times of the annual average of income which has arisen during the three years immediately preceding the date of instrument and the value of the trees thereon shall be determined in accordance with Rule 341 (ii) (a). (iii) Where the subject is building: (a) where the building is assessed to house tax and is occupied by the owner or is wholly or partly let out to tenants-25 times the actual or assessed annual rental value, whichever is higher as the case may be; (b) where the building is not assessed to house tax and is occupied by the owner or is wholly or partly let out to tenants-25 times the actual or assumed annual rental value, whichever is higher as the case may be." 24. By virtue of provisions of Rule 11 of the 1997 Rules the rules 340, 340-A and 341 and other rules of Chapter XV of 1942 Rules have been repealed on the date of commencement of 1997 Rules, as such now they are no more available after commencement of 1997 Rules. 25. Now coming to the provisions of 1997 Rules framed by the Governor of State of U.P. in exercise of powers under Sections 27, 47-A and Section 75 of the Act for carrying out the purpose of aforesaid provisions of Act. 26. Rule-4 of 1997 Rules deals for fixation of minimum rate for valuation of land, construction value of non commercial building and minimum rate of rent of commercial building which reads as under:- "4. Fixation of minimum rate for valuation of land, construction value of non-commercial building and minimum rate of rent of commercial building. (1) The Collector of the district shall biennially, as far as possible in the month of August, fix the minimum value per acre/per square metre of land, the minimum value per square metre of construction of non-commercial building and the minimum monthly rent per square metre of commercial building, situated in different parts of the district taking into consideration the following facts-- (a) in case of land- (i) classification of soil; (ii) availability of irrigation facility; (iii) proximity to road, market, but station, railway station, factories, educational institutions, hospitals and Government offices; and (iv) location with reference to its situation in urban area, semi-urban area or country-side; (b) in case of non-commercial building- (i) cost of material used in the construction of building; (ii) labour charges; (iii) type of construction, age and the depreciation of building; (c) in case of commercial building- (i) prevailing rent in locality; and (ii) nature of economic activity in the locality. (2) The Collector of the district may, suo motu or an application made to him in this behalf, on being satisfied about the incorrectness of the minimum value of land or of the construction of non-commercial building of the minimum rent of a commercial building fixed by him under sub-rule (1), for reasons recorded in writing, revise the same within a period of two years from the date of fixation of minimum value or rent as the case may be; (3) The Collector of the district shall after fixing the minimum value per acre/per square metre of land, and of the construction of non-commercial building and the minimum rent per square metre of commercial building under sub-rule (1), send a statement in three parts to the Registrar. The first part of such part of such statement shall contain the division of each sub-district of the district under his jurisdiction into urban area, semi-urban area and the countryside, the second part shall specify the minimum value of land situated in different parts of the sub-district and the third part shall contain, in the case of the non-commercial building the minimum value of construction and in the case of commercial building the minimum rent fixed under sub-rule (1). (4) The Registrar shall supply copies of statement mentioned in sub-rule (3) to the Sub-Registrars under his control and shall also forward a copy of the same to the Inspector General of Registration, Uttar Pradesh. (5) Every Registering Officer shall cause a copy of the above statement to the affixed on the notice board outside the registration office." 27. Rule 5 of said rules provides method of calculation of minimum value of land, grove, garden and building as under:- "5. Calculation of minimum value of land, grove, garden and building.- For the purposes of payment of stamp duty, the minimum value of immovable property forming the subject of an instrument shall be deemed to be such as may be arrived at as follows:- (a) In case of land Minimum value Where agricultural or non agricultural Area of land multiplied by minimum value fixed by Collector of the district under Rule 4. (b) In case of grove or garden (i) if assessed to revenue Minimum value of the land as worked out in the manner laid down in Clause (a) plus the value of the trees standing thereon worked out on the basis of the average price of the trees of the same nature, size and age prevailing' in the locality on the date of instrument; (ii) if not assessed to revenue or is exempted from it and is rented. Twenty times the annual rent plus the premium, if any, plus the value of trees standing thereon determined in accordance with Sub-clause (i); (iii) if not assessed to revenue or is exempted from it and profit has arisen during three years immediately preceding the date of the instrument. Twenty times the average annual profits plus the value of the trees standing thereon determined in accordance with Sub-clause (i); (iv) if not assessed to revenue or is exempted from it and no profit has arisen during the three years immediately preceding the date of the instrument. Twenty times the assumed annual profit plus the value of the trees standing thereon determined in accordance with Sub-clause (i). (c) In case of buildings (i) Non-commercial building. Minimum value of land whether covered by the construction or not, which is subject matter of instrument as worked out under Clause (a) plus the value of construction of building arrived at by multiplying the constructed area of each floor of the building by the minimum value fixed by the Collector of the district under Rule 4; (ii) Commercial building Three hundred times the minimum monthly rent of the building, which is the subject-matter of the instrument, calculated by multiplying the constructed area of each floor of the building with the minimum rent fixed by the Collector of the district under Rule 4. " 28. Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules deal with the procedure for holding inquiry by the Collector on receipt of reference or when suo motu action is proposed under Section 47-A of the Act as under:- "7. " 28. Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules deal with the procedure for holding inquiry by the Collector on receipt of reference or when suo motu action is proposed under Section 47-A of the Act as under:- "7. Procedure on receipt of a reference or when suo motu action is proposed under Section 47-A.-- (1)On receipt of a reference or where action is proposed to be taken suo motu under Section 47-A, the Collector shall issue notice to parties to the instrument to show cause within thirty days of the receipt of such notice as to why the market value of the property set forth in the instrument and the duty payable thereon be not determined by him. (2) The Collector may admit oral or documentary evidence, if any, produced by the parties to the instrument and call for and examine the original instrument to satisfy himself as to the correctness of the market value of the subject-matter of the instrument and for determining the duty payable thereon. (3) The Collector may: (a) call for any information or record from any public office, officer or authority under the Government or local authority; (b) examine and record the statement of any public officer or authority under the Government or local authority; (c) inspect the property after due notice to the parties to the instrument. (4) After considering the representation of the parties, if any, and examining the records and other evidence, the Collector shall determine the market value of the subject matter of the instrument and the duty payable thereon. (5) If, as a result of such inquiry, the market value is found to be fully and truly set forth and the instrument duly stamped according to such value, it shall be returned to the person who made the reference with a certificate to that effect. A copy of such certificate shall also be sent to the Registering officer concerned. (6) If as a result of such inquiry, the market value is found to be undervalued and not duly stamped, necessary action shall be taken in respect of it according to relevant provisions of the Act." 29. Section 47-A deals with under valued instruments. A copy of such certificate shall also be sent to the Registering officer concerned. (6) If as a result of such inquiry, the market value is found to be undervalued and not duly stamped, necessary action shall be taken in respect of it according to relevant provisions of the Act." 29. Section 47-A deals with under valued instruments. Sub-section (1) of which provides that if the market value of any property as set forth, in such instrument, is less than even minimum value determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act, the registering officer appointed under Registration Act, 1908 shall, immediately after presentation of any such instrument and before accepting it for registration, require the person liable to pay Stamp Duty under Section 29, to pay the deficit Stamp Duty as computed on the basis of minimum value determined in accordance with the said rules and return the instrument for presenting again in accordance with Section 23 of Registration Act, 1908. When deficit Stamp Duty required to be paid in respect of any instrument is paid and the instrument is presented again for registration, the Registering Officer shall certify by endorsement thereon, that the deficit Stamp Duty has been paid in respect thereof and register the same. But, if any person does not make payment of deficit Stamp Duty after receiving the order of registering officer and presents the instrument again for registration, then the Registering Officer shall before registering the instrument refer the same to the Collector, for determination of market value of property and proper duty payable thereon. But, if any person does not make payment of deficit Stamp Duty after receiving the order of registering officer and presents the instrument again for registration, then the Registering Officer shall before registering the instrument refer the same to the Collector, for determination of market value of property and proper duty payable thereon. And from a joint reading of the aforesaid provisions with Section 27 (2) of the Act it is clear that a person who is liable to pay stamp duty on the market value of any property chargeable with an advalorem duty on value of the property is required to set forth market value of property in the instrument in question while presenting the same before registering officer and such market value of the property shall not be less than even minimum value determined in accordance with rules made under this Act, otherwise it shall be returned by the registering officer asking the concerned person to pay deficit stamp duty required to be paid in respect of such instrument and on payment of such deficit stamp duty the registering officer shall register the instrument otherwise on failure to make such payment of deficit stamp duty he shall before registering the instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of market value of said property and proper duty payable thereon. 30. It is to be further noted that Sub-section (2) of Section 47-A provides that on receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of property which is subject matter of such instrument and the proper duty payable thereon. Not only this but by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A the Collector may suo motu or on a reference from any court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf, within four years from the date of registration of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of property, not already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to correctness of the market value, of the property which is the subject for such instrument, and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in such instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon. Such power can also be exercised after period of four years but before period of eight years from the date of registration of instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of property with the prior permission of State Government. Explanation appended to the aforesaid sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act further empowers the Collector to initiate proceeding under sub-section (3) in respect of which even the payment of deficit stamp duty by the concerned person has already been made under the orders of registering officer but such payment shall not prevent the Collector from initiating such inquiry against the such person. 31. 31. Thus, from the aforestated legal position, it is clear that in case of instruments relating to property chargeable with an advalorem duty on value of property the person who is liable to pay such Stamp duty under Section 29 of the Act is under legal obligation to present such instrument before the registering officer by setting forth in the instrument the minimum value of property forming subject matter of instrument determined in accordance with the Rules made under this Act otherwise on failure to make deficit stamp duty computed on the basis of minimum value of the property fixed under the rules, the registering officer shall refer the same before the Collector for determination of market value of the property and duty payable thereon under Section 47-A (1) of the Act and he would be bound to face reference proceeding before the Collector under Section 47-A (2) of the Act read with rule-7 of the Rules framed under the Act. It is no doubt true that while determining the market value of the property which is subject matter of such instrument, the Collector is not bound by minimum value of the said property fixed by him under the rules framed in this regard under the Act, instead thereof he shall proceed to determine market value of said immoveable property which is subject matter of the instrument according to the detailed procedure provided under new rule-7 of 1997 Rules, giving full opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and after making spot inspection and hearing the parties, but in our prima facie opinion, the said minimum value of the property shall be binding upon the registering officer while making such reference and without payment of which he cannot register the instrument. 32. At this juncture it is to be noted that the Collector of the concerned district is sole repository of both the powers to be exercised by him under rule-4 of 1997 Rules for fixation of minimum value of land etc. (circle rate) and also the powers to be exercised by him under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47-A of the Act read with Rule-7 of the Rules to fix market value of land or property which is subject matter of such instruments either on a reference made to him or by exercising suo motu power. But both the powers seem to be conceptually different altogether. But both the powers seem to be conceptually different altogether. Under rule-4 he has to fix minimum value of land/property (circle rates) of area, whereas under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47-A read with rule-7 of 1997 Rules he has to fix real/correct market value of the property which is subject matter of instrument. In our opinion, the expressions 'minimum value of land' and 'market value of property' convey different meanings altogether. From very nature of expressions "the minimum value of property" can be the value of said property approximate to the market value of that property or at any stretch of imagination minimum value of a property at the most can be equal to or at par with market value of that property but in no case it can be more than market value of that property, otherwise there would be contradiction in the terms itself. Although under the scheme of Section 27 and 47-A of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, the Collector while deciding the reference for determination of market value of the property, which is subject matter of the instruments would not be bound by the minimum value of the said property (circle rate) fixed by him under Rule 4 of the rules but that would not mean that while determining market value of such property he can determine less than minimum value of the property fixed by him under Rule-4 of the 1997 Rules for the reason that it would be contradictory in terms and further in inquiry under Rule-7 of 1997 Rules, there is nothing to indicate that any material to be placed or to be relied by him would lead any conclusion to determine the market value of the land less than minimum value of the said land fixed by him under Rule 4 of 1997 Rules. However, it is no doubt true that while determining the market value of said land he can determine more than the minimum value of the said land as he is not bound by the minimum value of land fixed under Rule 4 of 1997 Rules by himself. 33. However, it is no doubt true that while determining the market value of said land he can determine more than the minimum value of the said land as he is not bound by the minimum value of land fixed under Rule 4 of 1997 Rules by himself. 33. While delegating the power to fix minimum value of the land for the purpose of charging stamp duty on the instrument to the rule making authority under the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act, the legislature has not formulated any guidelines or policy on the basis of which the the minimum value of such land can be fixed by the authority prescribed under the Rules, who is District Collector. In the wake of aforesaid provisions under the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act has conferred such power to the rule making authority to fix any minimum value of the land forming subject matter of such instrument without formulating any policy or guideline, criteria or standard or principle on the basis of which such minimum value of land can be fixed by Collector, who is prescribed authority under the rule, suffers from vice of excessive delegation of legislative powers upon the State Government, as such to that extent the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act are not sustainable and are liable to be declared void on account of excessive delegation of legislative power to the rule making authority. 34. At this juncture, it is to be noted that as observed by Late Jagdis Swarup at page 759 of his Book (4th Edition) Legislation and Interpretation that the essential legislative function cannot be delegated by legislature. Exactly what constitutes essential function cannot be enunciated in general terms but the essential legislative function consists in determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a binding rule of conduct. It cannot be said that an unlimited right of delegation is inherent in legislative power itself. This is not warranted by the provisions of the constitution and legitimacy of delegation depends entirely upon its being used as an ancillary measure which the legislature considers to be necessary for the purpose of exercising its legislative powers effectively and completely. It cannot be said that an unlimited right of delegation is inherent in legislative power itself. This is not warranted by the provisions of the constitution and legitimacy of delegation depends entirely upon its being used as an ancillary measure which the legislature considers to be necessary for the purpose of exercising its legislative powers effectively and completely. The legislature must retain in its own hands, the essential legislative function which consists in declaring the legislative policy and laying down the standard which is to be enacted into a rule of law and what can be delegated is the task of subordinate legislation which by its very nature is ancillary to the statute which delegates the power to make it. The legislature cannot abdicate these essential legislative functions in favour of another. 35. In the Delhi Law's Act case (1951 SCR 747) Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the legislature could not delegate its essential functions though it could delegate the power to formulate details. An excessive delegation of legislative power would be struck down as unconstitutional that it involved excessive or unconstitutional delegation of its essential power or function of legislative power. In Registrar Vs. Kunjabinu AIR 1980 S.C. 350 and D.C.G.M. Vs. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 937 (para 32) the Hon'ble Apex Court came to hold that no delegation could be held to be excessive or unconstitutional if the statute laid down the policy or principles to guide the exercise of delegated power and also that in finding such policy and principles, the court would liberally construe the provisions of statute. 36. Now there is uniformity in the view of Hon'ble Apex Court on the point that delegation of power to the administrative authority is constitutional only if the legislature lays down the standards to guide the administration. However, there is no uniformity as to adequacy of the standards that the legislature is constitutionally bound to provide. Thus from the aforesaid statements of law it is clear that if the legislature lays down a policy, prescribes the standards and affords sufficient guidance to the rule making or sub-ordinate legislative authority, it is proper delegation but not if the legislature confers on sub-ordinate law making authority powers to determine its own policy without any guidance in that regard. Thus from the aforesaid statements of law it is clear that if the legislature lays down a policy, prescribes the standards and affords sufficient guidance to the rule making or sub-ordinate legislative authority, it is proper delegation but not if the legislature confers on sub-ordinate law making authority powers to determine its own policy without any guidance in that regard. In latter case it would be uncanalised power and would amount in effect, to transferring its basic power to another body (see - Corporation of Culcutta Vs. Liberty Cinema A. 1965 SC 1107). In latter situation a particular piece of legislation would suffer from the vice of excessive delegation, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard that in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions including Hamdard Dawakhana Vs. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 554 up till now the provision of Section 47-A of the Act to that extent suffer from vice of excessive delegation of legislative power to the sub-ordinate authority by the legislature itself, appears to have some substance. We are of the prima facie opinion that the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act so far as it has conferred the powers upon the rule making authority for fixing minimum value of the land chargeable with stamp duty without formulating any policy or guidelines on that basis such minimum value can be fixed by the authority prescribed under the rules to that extent suffer from vice of excessive delegation of essential legislative functions to the rule making authority, as such has to be declared unconstitutional null and void and inoperative, consequently the provisions Rule-4 of 1997 Rules are also void being without authority of law. 37. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the aforesaid provisions of Section 47-A of the Act do not suffer from vice of excessive delegation of essential legislative functions to the rule making authority (Governor of the State), despite thereof we have to examine the provisions of Rule 4 of 1997 Rules independently as to whether it can be held to be invalid for the reason that it confers arbitrary and irrational powers upon the Collector of the district to fix minimum value of the land (circle rate) for the purpose of charging stamp duty on the instrument chargeable under the provisions of the Act? 38. 38. In this connection, it is to be noted that in the Chapter XV of 1942 Rules existing earlier a compete code for determination of the market value of instruments chargeable by stamp duty under the Act were provided, wherein a duty was cast upon the every Collector to supply biennially to the District Registrar and such other officers of the State Government, a copy of statement showing classification of soil, circle rate and average price of land pertaining to each such classification situated in every Pargana, corporation and local body of each District. The aforesaid duty of Collector appears to have been fixed under new Sub Rule 3 and 4, Rule-4 of 1997 Rules. Rule 341 of old rule provided method and standard of determination of market value of immovable property forming the subject of an instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift settlement, award or trust referred to in Section 47-A of the Act with a deeming provision contained therein that said minimum market value shall not be less than that as arrived on the basis of multiples given in Rule 341 of the said rule. Under the said rules it was provided that where the subject is land in case of Bhomidhari- 800 times of land revenue, in case of Sirdari land -400 times of the land revenue, where the land is not assessed to revenue but net profits have arisen from it during three years immediately preceding the date of instrument, 25 times of annual average of such profit; where the land is not assessed to revenue and no profit has arisen from it during three years immediately preceding the date of instrument, 400 times the assumed annual rent and where the land is non-agricultural and is situated within the limits of local body referred to in Clause (c) of sub rule (1) of 340 Rules on the basis of average price per square meter prevailing in the locality on the date of instrument shall be the minimum market value of the land for the purpose of stamp duty. But the aforesaid rules have been repealed by Rule 11 of 1997 and under new rule-4 of 1997 Rules, no such standard or norm is provided on the basis of which minimum value of such land/property can be determined/fixed by the Collector. But the aforesaid rules have been repealed by Rule 11 of 1997 and under new rule-4 of 1997 Rules, no such standard or norm is provided on the basis of which minimum value of such land/property can be determined/fixed by the Collector. We have already indicated herein before that the minimum value of a particular property can be either lesser to the actual market value of the property or approximate or nearer to the market value of the property or at the most it can be equal or at par with the market value of the property but in no case it can be more than or over and above of the market value of said property, otherwise there would be contradiction in the terms itself. Thus, in our opinion, the minimum value of a property is closely connected and linked with the market value of such property and market value of such property is the price, the property may fetch in open market if sold by willing seller, to willing purchaser, unaffected by any special needs but there is nothing to indicate that any guidelines have been laid down wherein exemplars of sales or factors which were liable to be considered under earlier rules, are taken into consideration while determining the minimum value of land constituting subject matter of instrument chargeable with stamp duty while fixing minimum value of the land under Rule-4 of 1997 Rules. In our prima facie opinion the facts liable to be taken into consideration for determination of minimum value of land under Rule 4 (a) (i) like classification of soil, (ii) availability of irrigation facility, (iii) proximity to road, market, bus station, railway station, factories, hospitals and Government offices, and (iv) location with reference to situation in urban area semi-urban area or country side do not furnish any independent basis for determination of minimum value of land, however, existence of these factors can improve the existing value/price of the land but they by itself do not furnish independent basis for determination of either minimum value or market value of the land. Rule-5 of 1997 Rules merely provides method of computation/calculation of minimum value of land etc. on the basis of rate fixed under Rule-4 of the said rules, therefore, this rule can also not cure the defects and discrepancies of Rule-4 of 1997 Rules. Rule-5 of 1997 Rules merely provides method of computation/calculation of minimum value of land etc. on the basis of rate fixed under Rule-4 of the said rules, therefore, this rule can also not cure the defects and discrepancies of Rule-4 of 1997 Rules. Besides this, the circulars issued by the departments filed along with the counter affidavit, in our prima facie opinion, also do not furnish any such basis and they merely indicate the manner in which circle rate should be fixed and to be shown in the list containing such circle rates. In such back drop of the case we are of the prima facie opinion that Rule-4 of 1997 Rules confers unguided, uncontrolled and uncanalised powers upon the Collector of the district to fix any minimum value (circle rate) of land within the territorial limits of his district, as he likes, on his sweet will without any limitation, therefore, such rule is liable to be held arbitrary and irrational, thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and on that court fixation of impugned circle rate dated 20/28.8.2008 and 30.6.2010 are rendered inoperative being without authority of law. 39. There is yet another aspect of the matter on that basis also the impugned action of Collector can be examined. Assuming the provision of Rule-4 of 1997 Rules as it stands is valid, even then it contemplates conceptually two different exercise by the Collector of the district under said rules. Under first category of such exercise, the Collector of the district under Rule-4 (1) shall biennially as far as possible in the month of August, fix minimum value per acre/per square metre of land, the minimum value of per square metre of construction of non-commercial building and the minimum monthly rent per square metre of commercial building situated in different parts of the district. In second category of exercise under Rule 4 (2) of the rules the Collector may suo motu or on application made to him in this behalf on being satisfied about the incorrectness of the minimum value of the land or the minimum value of per square meter of the construction of the non-commercial building or the minimum rent of commercial building fixed by him under sub-rule (1) for reasons to be recorded in writing, revise the same within a period of two years from the date of fixation of minimum value or rent as case may be. Thus, from the aforesaid provisions of the rules it is categorically clear that while determining minimum value of land (i.e. circle rate) per acre/per square metre, minimum value of per square metre of construction of non-commercial building and minimum monthly rent per square metre of commercial building, the Collector has to undertake detail exercise and only thereafter he has to arrive at the conclusion of fixing such minimum value of land (circle rate) and value of per square of construction of the non-commercial building and rent of commercial building and unless he has undertaken such exercise it is not open for him to go on increasing the minimum value of land (circle rate) by increasing on flat rates like 25 to 100% or so on, on existing minimum value (circle rates). The question of revision of circle rate in our opinion would arise only after determination of such minimum value or circle rate on being satisfied about incorrectness of minimum value/circle rate fixed by him. 40. In case in hand no material has been placed along with the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit showing that such exercise has been undertaken by the Collector, Allahabad wherein he has taken into consideration of genuine sale exemplars of various locality of city Allahabad on the basis of which minimum value of land has been determined. Instead thereof vague assertions have been made in the counter affidavit that on account of speedy growth in commercial activities in various part of the city particularly in Civil Lines area the circle rates of the land have been increased but no sale exemplars of land of said area have been filed to establish the aforesaid assertions as such no reliance can be placed on bald assertions made in the pleadings. In our view vague averments in the counter/supplementary counter affidavits, and filing of copy of merely six sale deeds, out of which two are alleged to have been executed in the year 2006, and one in the year 2007, two in the year 2008 and two of year 2009in our prima facie opinion would not suffice the requirement of law, thus respondents have failed to file sufficient number of sale exemplars which may justify the circle rates of land of city Allahabad fixed in the year 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010 also. 41. From the perusal of of sale deed dated 16.9.2006, it appears that an open land of area 919.60 sq. metre of George Town was sold for consideration of Rs. one crore twenty six lacs fifty thousand by, which would come to about Rs. 13750/- per sq. metre, but no other sale deed of Mohalla George Town has been filed to demonstrate the average market value of the land of aforesaid Mohalla or locality so as to determine minimum value of land of said Mohalla or locality, as such single sale deed of huge track of land of Mohalla George Town cannot be made basis for determination of either market value of land of the said Mohalla or for fixation of minimum value of the land situated in George Town. 42. Another sale deed dated 5.9.2006 of an area 297.28 sq. metre land of Alopibagh on which multi-storied building covering 175sq. metre has been filed alongwith the aforesaid counter affidavit which was sold for consideration of Rs.32 Lac. which would come to Rs. 10774/- per sq. metre but if the cost of construction of Multi-storey building is deducted there from the value of land would be reduced from the aforesaid amount. Except the aforesaid sale deed of constructed house no other sale deed of aforesaid Mohalla for the year 2006 or of subsequent years have been filed. Another sale deed dated 26.4.2007 of an area of 595.02 sq. metre land for consideration of Rs. 1,25,00000/- has been filed. Out of total area of land 595.2 sq. metre land an area of 576.50 sq. Another sale deed dated 26.4.2007 of an area of 595.02 sq. metre land for consideration of Rs. 1,25,00000/- has been filed. Out of total area of land 595.2 sq. metre land an area of 576.50 sq. metre land is covered by constructed residential house, thus sale consideration of open land can be calculated only by deducting the cost of construction over the said land but no other sale deed of open land of the aforesaid area has been filed with the counter affidavit to demonstrate the minimum per sq. metre price of land of the said locality, thus the aforesaid sale deed cannot be relied upon for the purpose of fixation of either minimum or market value of land of said Mohalla/Locality. 43. Another sale exemplar of a multi storey commercial building constructed over 165-61 Sq. Meter land at Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad dated 23.07.2008 has also been filed alongwith counter affidavit. The description of property in the said sale deed shows that a portion of five storied commercial complex built over Plot No. 27-A, Civil Station Allahabad bearing Municipal No. 118-A M.G. Marg Allahabad was sold for Rs. 71,28,000/-, as such, no value of open land of aforesaid building can be worked out in absence description of cost of construction, accordingly, no reliance can be placed thereon for the purpose of fixation of minimum value of land covered by said multi-storey commercial complex which appears to be used for office purposes. Although in the sale deed market value of property has been shown less than actual sale consideration but how the aforesaid market value was worked out, it is not understandable. No other sale deed of open area of land of aforesaid locality has been filed by the respondents which may be relevant for fixing minimum value (circle rate) of the land. 44. Another sale deed dated 6.6.2008 of an area of 294.48 Sq. Meter part of Nazul free hold plot 1/3/B Civil Station for sale consideration of Rs. 84,92064/-00 has also been filed with the counter affidavit. The property is situated at Elgin Road Civil Station Allahabad. 44. Another sale deed dated 6.6.2008 of an area of 294.48 Sq. Meter part of Nazul free hold plot 1/3/B Civil Station for sale consideration of Rs. 84,92064/-00 has also been filed with the counter affidavit. The property is situated at Elgin Road Civil Station Allahabad. The nature of property has been shown to be non-residential, but it is not clear from the copy of sale deed in the description of property as to whether the property in question is open land or it is constructed building as such no reliance can be placed thereon for the purpose of fixing minimum value of the land on the basis of said sale deed and that too without aid of other sale exemplars of said locality. Similarly one sale-deed dated 3.10.2009 of double storied building of residential area of Hasimpur Road over 172.66 Sq. Meter land has also been filed with counter affidavit. The sale consideration of aforesaid building was Rs. 28,86,000/- but without deducting the cost of construction market value of land covered by the said building can not be worked out. Besides this, another sale-deed dated 3.10.2009 of double storied building of Mohalla Abubakarpur for a constructed area of 402 Sq. Meter over the land of 399.76 Sq. metre for sale consideration of Rs. 45,00000/- has also been filed but without deducting the cost of construction existing over the entire land, neither market value nor minimum value of the land can be worked out. 45. At this juncture, it is to be noticed that in spite of alleged speedy growth in the commercial activities in the aforesaid area no sale-deed of big plots has been deliberately filed by the respondents alongwith the said counter affidavit to justify the present and past circle rates of several other area of Allahabad City. It is not understandable that big plots might not have been sold in such a big City like Allahabad. The sale-exemplars filed by respondents in our prima facie opinion, do not justify the circle rate fixed by the Collector Allahabad from year 2002 to 20/28.8.2008 and/or on 30.6.2010. The sale-exemplars also appear to be prima facie misleading to the Court. In our prima facie opinion, the stand taken by the respondents in this regard appears to be like private litigant playing hide and seek. The sale-exemplars also appear to be prima facie misleading to the Court. In our prima facie opinion, the stand taken by the respondents in this regard appears to be like private litigant playing hide and seek. Not only this but it is also significant to notice that for the purpose of charging stamp duty on ad valorem value of property there can be no difference in sale of either lease hold rights by lessee or free hold rights by owner of such land to another person and it is also common knowledge that in Mohalla Civil Lines, Ashok Nagar, Rajapur Katra, Tagore Town, George Town, Mumfordganj of Allahabad City almost all the lands were initially Nazul land possessed by lessee of such Nazul land and assertions have been made in the counter affidavit in vague terms that various transaction of sales of land have taken place in near past but no sale deed of lease hold rights of any big plot of City Allahabad pertaining to the aforesaid areas has been filed deliberately alongwith the counter affidavit. Merely two sale-deeds of small pieces of constructed land, one of Civil Lines and other of Civil Lines (Elgin Road) have been filed alongwith counter affidavit. It indicates that respondents are deliberately avoiding to furnish necessary information to the court which must have been in their possession, which leads to a prima facie conclusion that they are playing game of hide and seek and doing chicanery in contesting the instant case, as such, the aforesaid stand of respondents-State functionaries cannot be appreciated. 46. There is another surprising feature of the case which is revealed from perusal of Annexure-CA-5 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in pursuance of our earlier direction dated 18.06.2010 given in this case, whereby we had directed the respondents to show Circle Rates earlier fixed by the Collector Allahabad in the years 2000, 2002 and 2004, besides the Circle Rates fixed in the year 2006, 2007 and 2008. In pursuant thereto the respondents have disclosed the same through a chart contained in Annexure No. CA-5 to the counter affidavit. In pursuant thereto the respondents have disclosed the same through a chart contained in Annexure No. CA-5 to the counter affidavit. Through the aforesaid chart, the respondents have also shown the enhancement made in the Circle Rates of certain areas while fixing the same in subsequent years from earlier years right from year 2000 to 2008 and have also shown the enhancement up to the year 2010 of Allahabad City through the aforesaid chart. Through the aforesaid chart, the respondents have also shown the enhancement made in the Circle Rates of certain areas while fixing the same in subsequent years from earlier years right from year 2000 to 2008 and have also shown the enhancement up to the year 2010 of Allahabad City through the aforesaid chart. For ready reference and better appreciation of issue, it would be appropriate to extract the aforesaid chart prepared by the respondents contained in Annexure No. CA-5 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of District Magistrate, Allahabad hereinafter:- @ HINDI @ % @ Hindi @ 2002 @ Hindi @ % @ Hindi @ 2004 @ Hindi @ % @ Hindi @ 2006 @ Hindi @ % @ Hindi @ 2007 @ Hindi @ % @ Hindi @ 2008 @ Hindi @ % @ Hindi @ 2010 @ Hindi @ % @ Hindi @ 1- @ Hindi @ 2700 233 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 33 25000 28 32000 2- @ Hindi @ 1800 288 7000 14 8000 50 12000 25 15000 20 18000 22 22000 3- @ Hindi @ 2400 233 8000 11 9000 11 10000 25 12500 20 15000 10 16500 4- @ Hindi @ 2400 191 7000 0 7000 42 10000 25 12500 20 15000 10 16500 5- @ Hindi @ 2400 233 8000 12 9000 33 12000 4 12500 36 17000 6 18000 6- @ Hindi @ 2500 220 8000 12 9000 33 12000 25 15000 13 17000 6 18000 7- @ Hindi @ 2500 220 8000 12 9000 33 12000 25 15000 13 17000 6 18000 8- @ Hindi @ 2400 233 8000 12 8000 11 10000 50 15000 0 15000 10 16500 9- @ Hindi @ 1600 400 8000 0 8000 25 10000 25 12500 &16 10500 14 12000 10- @ Hindi @ 1700 370 8000 0 8000 25 10000 25 12500 12 14000 7 15000 11- @ Hindi @ 1250 540 8000 0 8000 25 10000 25 12500 &16 10500 14 12000 12- cSjguk 1700 370 8000 0 8000 25 10000 25 12500 12 14000 7 15000 13- @ Hindi @ 1600 400 8000 0 8000 25 10000 25 12500 12 14000 7 15000 14- @ Hindi @ 2400 220 8000 12 9000 0 9000 25 11250 15 13000 8 14000 15- 1700 370 8000 0 8000 25 10000 25 12500 12 14000 7 15000 16- 2400 275 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 33 20000 10 22000 17- 1350 196 4000 12 4500 33 6000 25 7500 12 9000 5-5 9500 18- 1350 418 7000 14 8000 0 8000 25 10000 13 13000 8 14000 19- 1400 400 7000 0 7000 28 9000 25 11250 15 13000 11-5 14500 20- 1400 257 5000 0 5000 20 6000 25 7500 33 10000 10 11000 21- @ Hindi @ 1100 81 2000 50 3000 100 6000 25 7500 12 9000 0 9000 22- 3000 200 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 60 24000 29 31000 23- 2700 233 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 66 25000 28 32000 24- 2700 233 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 60 24000 33 32000 25- 2700 233 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 60 24000 29 31000 26- 2700 233 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 33 20000 40 28000 27- 2700 233 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 60 24000 20 29000 28- 2700 233 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 46 22000 27 28000 29- 2700 233 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 60 24000 29 28000 30- 2700 233 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 46 22000 27 31000 31- 2700 233 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 33 20000 40 28000 32- 2700 233 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 33 20000 30 28000 33- 1800 400 9000 &9 8000 20 12000 25 15000 46 22000 27 26000 34- 2700 233 9000 11 10000 20 12000 25 15000 0 15000 33 28000 35- 1800 288 7000 14 8000 20 12000 25 15000 0 15000 33 20000 36- 1800 288 7000 14 8000 50 12000 25 15000 20 18000 27 20000 37- 1800 288 7000 0 7000 50 9000 25 11250 15 13000 0 23000 38- 2400 233 8000 12 9000 33 10000 25 12500 44 18000 27 13000 39- 2400 233 8000 12 9000 33 12000 25 15000 46 22000 27 23000 40- 2400 233 8000 12 9000 33 12000 25 15000 60 24000 29 31000 41- 2400 233 8000 12 9000 33 12000 25 15000 20 18000 27 23000 42- 2400 233 8000 12 9000 33 12000 25 15000 7 16000 31 21000 43- 2500 220 8000 12 9000 33 12000 25 15000 27 19000 26 24000 44- 2500 220 8000 12 9000 33 12000 25 15000 13 17000 6 18000 45- 2500 220 8000 12 9000 33 12000 25 15000 27 19000 26 24000 46- 2500 220 8000 12 9000 33 12000 25 15000 27 19000 21 23000 47- 2500 220 8000 12 9000 33 12000 25 15000 48- 2500 220 8000 12 9000 33 12000 25 15000 20 18000 27 23000 47. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid chart, it appears that in the year 2000 the Circle Rates of Civil Line was fixed at the rate of Rs. 2700/- per square metre but in the year 2002 it was fixed at the rate of Rs. 9000/- per square metre by making enhancement from prevailing Circle Rates to the extent of 233%. In year 2004 it was fixed as Rs. 10,000/- per square metre by making enhancement of 11% from earlier minimum value of land. Thereafter, in the year 2006 for aforesaid area Circle Rate was fixed at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per square metre by making enhancement of 20% from earlier Circle Rate. It was again fixed in the year 2007 as Rs. 15,000/- per square metre by making enhancement of 25% per square metre from year 2006 thereafter within a period of nine months it was again fixed in the year 2008 at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per square metre by making enhancement of about 60% wrongly mentioning as 33% and in the year 2010 the aforesaid circle rate has been further enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- per square metre to 32,000/- per square metre mentioning as 28% enhancement. Thus, in the year 2000 the circle rate of the Civil Lines area was fixed as Rs. 2700/- per square metre, whereas in the year 2010 it has been fixed as Rs. 32,000/- per square metre, which may come to more than 12 times, magnification of the minimum value of land within 10 years. Similarly, in other areas also like Ashok Nagar in the year 2000 the circle rate was fixed at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per square metre and in the year 2002 it was fixed at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per square metre by making enhancement of 288% and in the year 2008 it was fixed at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per square metre, which is 10 times of the circle rate fixed in the year 2000 and in the year 2010 it has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per square metre which is more than 12 times from year 2000. The aforesaid chart shows that in different localities the circle rate from year 2000 to 2002 has been enhanced to the extent of 540% almost varying from 233% to 540%. 22,000/- per square metre which is more than 12 times from year 2000. The aforesaid chart shows that in different localities the circle rate from year 2000 to 2002 has been enhanced to the extent of 540% almost varying from 233% to 540%. Such enhancement in the circle rate from year 2000 to 2002 cannot be justified under any exigency, thus it appears that the aforesaid fixation was purely whimsical, arbitrary and without any legal and factual basis for the same. 48. In this connection we must state that it cannot be assumed that the entire area of city Allahabad was viran area (without any population) earlier to the year 2000 and between 2000 t0 2002 it has changed its nature and converted into densely populated area and various transaction of sales have taken place between the year 2000 to 2002 and on account of huge demands, the value of land has been so much increased compelling the Collector of district of that time to increase circle rate upto the extent of 540% varying from more than 200% to 540% from existing circle rate of year 2000 in city area of Allahabad. Thus, in our opinion, the aforesaid fixation was purely whimsical and arbitrary and was fixed for some oblique and ulterior purpose. 49. Although we are conscious about the legal impact of imposition of stamp duty on various transactions of transfers and on other instruments chargeable with the stamp duty which is one of the sources of revenue of the State in normal course of business but the aforesaid enhancements of circle rates made in city Allahabad from year 2000 to 2010 clearly indicate that the aforesaid enhancements were done by Collectors of district for ulterior purposes which may not be justifiable under the scheme of the Act. It appears that the aforesaid enhancements in the circle rates were done to snatch money by converting the Nazul lease land into freehold land of city Allahabad, as the circle rates fixed by the Collector has direct impact and bearing with the conversion of Nazul lease land into freehold land. It appears that the aforesaid enhancements in the circle rates were done to snatch money by converting the Nazul lease land into freehold land of city Allahabad, as the circle rates fixed by the Collector has direct impact and bearing with the conversion of Nazul lease land into freehold land. Though the policy of conversion of Nazul lease land into free hold land formulated by the State Government is not known or it is foreign to the Act and it cannot be connected or linked with the scheme of the Act but on that count the Government has intended to collect more revenue in conversion of Nazul lease land into free hold. Consequently the price of land of city Allahabad has been unduly increased due to aforesaid illegal device adopted by the Collectors of the district. As such the exercise of power under Section 4 of the Rules by the Collector of the District Allahabad appears to be for alien purposes i.e. for different purposes for which the power has been conferred upon the Collector under the statute, therefore, in our prima facie opinion, the exercise of power by the Collector Allahabad while fixing the aforesaid circle rates is tainted with mala fide and exercise in bad faith. Thus, even assuming for the sake of arguments that the Rule-4 of 1997 Rules may be valid nevertheless the exercise of power by the Collector Allahabad under the said rule may be held to be based on bad faith for the reason that exercise of power has been done for alien purposes i.e. for different purposes for which the power has not been conferred upon the Collector under the statute and such exercise of power is held to be mala fide. 50. 50. In this connection it is also to be noted that the minimum value of land per square metre (circle rate) and minimum construction value of non-commercial building and minimum rate of rent of commercial building fixed by the Collector under Rule 4 of 1997 Rules of city area/Municipal area have direct bearing with and legal impact upon the imposition of property tax/house tax, water tax and sewerage tax by Municipalities and/or Nagar Nigam, as such it has not merely exorbitantly increased the market value of the land of city area but it would also adversely affect and cast heavy financial burden upon the existing house owners situated in Municipal area of city Allahabad. 51. Although in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by Collector, Allahabad in para 8 he has shown some increase in collection of revenue through stamp duty from 2005-06 to 2009-10 but he did not separately indicate the increase of such collection of revenue from stamp duty in the city area as well as rural area. Therefore, the aforesaid statement made in para 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit also appears to be misleading to the Court. 52. Thus, in view of foregoing discussions we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where this Court should grant indulgence in the larger public interest either at the instance of the petitioner or in exercise of suo motu power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as this Court has not merely power and jurisdiction to undo all pervasive illegalities committed by State functionaries and to bring them within the limits and ambit of their powers but this Court is also under duty to uphold the Majesty of law and Constitution. Therefore, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that in spite of the fact that this Court was seized of the matter and the case was fixed for hearing today meanwhile the Collector, Allahabad has enhanced the Circle Rate of District Allahabad including the urban areas (City Allahabad) which is subject matter in issue without any justification for the same. The Collector, Allahabad, present in the court could not give any plausible explanation as to why he could not hold his hand on the said matter only upto 16.7.2010 when the case was posted for hearing today and he was already called upon to justify earlier circle rates of land of City Allahabad fixed by Collector, Allahabad from time to time as indicated in the preceding parts of this order. In our opinion, Collector the Collector, Allahabad has taken the aforesaid action in haste and in a very arbitrary manner with intention to further complicate the issue. He has taken our earlier direction dated 18.6.2010 in very causal manner. We are of the view that the aforesaid action of Collector, Allahabad should not be viewed as based on any administrative exigency rather by the aforesaid order he has tried to complicate the issue, therefore, we are of the prima facie opinion that the aforesaid act is not merely illegal but it is malafide also. Thus, we have no option but to stay the order dated 30.6.2010 passed by Collector, Allahabad whereby he has fixed the circle rate of land of urban areas of City Allahabad for charging stamp duty on instruments of transfer including urban areas of Jhunsi, Naini and Phaphamau of District Allahabad by making enhancement of about 30% in existing circle rates till the next date of listing. 53. Accordingly, as interim measure, the effect and operation of order dated 30.6.2010 passed by Collector fixing minimum value/Circle Rate of land of the District Allahabad to the extent of City Allahabad including urban areas of Jhunsi, Naini and Phaphamau for the purpose of charging stamp duty on the instrument chargeable by stamp duty shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. However, it shall be open for the Collector, Allahabad to go on realising stamp duty in respect of the aforesaid areas at the circle rate prevailing prior to the impugned order dated 30.6.2010 as fixed vide earlier order dated 20/28.8.2008 passed by Collector, Allahabad in this regard. The stay order shall cover only urban area of Allahabad City including the urban areas of Jhunsi, Naini and Phaphamau of District Allahabad. 54. List on 29.7.2010 for further hearing before u.